Download Biodiversity, climate change and poverty: exploring the links

Institute for
Environment and
Development
An IIED Briefing
• Feb 2008
International
Biodiversity, climate change and
poverty: exploring the links
Hannah Reid and Krystyna Swiderska
Biodiversity — the variety of all life, from genes and species to ecosystems — is intimately linked to Earth’s
climate and, inevitably, to climate change. Biodiversity and poverty are also inextricably connected. For
instance, changes to natural ecosystems influence both climate change and people’s ability to cope with
some of its damaging impacts. And in their turn climate change, as well as people’s responses to it, affect
biodiversity. Unpicking all these strands clearly shows that conserving and managing biodiversity can
help natural systems and vulnerable people cope with a shifting global climate. Yet compared to activities
such as forest conservation and afforestation — widely noted as a way of sequestering carbon and cutting
greenhouse gas emissions — biodiversity conservation is a neglected area. That must change: urgent support
is needed for local solutions to biodiversity loss that provide benefits on all counts.
KEY POINTS:
• Biodiversity is key to how well people can adapt to
climate change, how effectively landscapes absorb
and store carbon, and how effective vegetation and
ecosystems are in reducing the adverse impacts of
climate change.
• Large-scale projects such as protecting substantial areas
of forest can conserve biodiversity and capture carbon,
but the poor will need to be involved in any planning
and decision-making.
• Priority should be given to local initiatives that use
local knowledge and approaches to deliver multiple
benefits, such as traditional farming systems that
conserve genetic and ecosystem diversity, sustain local
adaptation, sequester carbon and reduce poverty.
The links between climate change and biodiversity
In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states with ‘very high
confidence’ that human activities since 1750 have caused
global warming. For the next two decades, says the IPCC,
about 0.2 °C of warming per decade is projected. Among the
many knock-on effects are a sea level rise of more than 50
centimetres by 2100. It is also likely that some 20 to 30 per
cent of plant and animal species assessed will be at greater
risk of extinction if the rise in global average temperatures
exceeds 2-3 °C.1, 2
Biodiversity, land use and climate change Changes to
biodiversity and natural systems are likely to have a major
influence on the global climate. Land use changes leading
to habitat and thus biodiversity losses can also boost
greenhouse gas emissions. For instance forests, which are
vital carbon sinks, release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the
atmosphere when cut down or burnt. Land use changes,
particularly deforestation in tropical regions — where forests
tend to be very rich in biodiversity — are responsible for
roughly 18 per cent of human-driven CO2 emissions.3
Peatlands hold about a third of the carbon contained in soil
worldwide, and greenhouse gases are released every time
they are burnt, drained or converted to cropland. Many
peatlands are important biodiversity reservoirs or stopover
points for migratory species. So while the measurable effects
of actual biodiversity loss on climate change may be highly
variable, it is far more certain that conserving biodiversity
will help in mitigating climate change.
Using biodiversity to cope with climate change impacts
Scientists agree that even if greenhouse gas emissions were
to stabilise — an unlikely scenario, given inertia on the
part of governments and the public — global warming and
sea level rise will persist for centuries. This is down to the
timescales associated with climate processes and feedback.
So the need to adapt to climate change impacts is inevitable.
It is also already happening across the globe. Many people
are using natural resources and biodiversity, including genetic
diversity, as part of the adaptation process. For instance, wild
relatives of food crops can be used to breed new varieties that
can cope with changing conditions. In India, for instance,
some farmers are accessing different crop varieties through
traditional exchange systems, developing new varieties, and
adapting farming practices to cope with hotter temperatures,
pest infestations and disease (see Box 1).
In many regions of the developing world, the rural poor
already rely heavily on wild food sources and medicinal
Published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
www.iied.org
Box 1 Swap shop: agro-biodiversity and traditional knowledge
in India
It may be known in the North for tea, but Darjeeling district in
West Bengal, India, is rich in traditional rice varieties. Here, seed
purity is maintained through exchanges within and between
villages. Women farmers adapt to changing conditions by
procuring seeds of different varieties through traditional practices
of seed saving, exchanges and networks. For example, a villager
growing rice at 1200 metres obtained a different variety suited
to higher temperatures from a villager at 750 metres. To cope
with water shortages, farmers engaged in wet rice cultivation are
trying to get native seeds suitable for dry paddy fields from others
in neighbouring Sikkim.
Farmers in the region are also adapting agricultural practices and
developing new varieties. One farmer is planting ginger a little
later than usual to help tackle pest infestation. Another has used
a wild relative of cardamom to breed a new, disease-resistant
variety — which is such a success, it has attracted support from
the state government for sale to neighbouring regions.
Traditional farming systems and farmers’ innovations are clearly
at the cutting edge in adaptation to climate change. While
scientists and policymakers work to find solutions, local farmers
have already amassed considerable experience of how to cope,
based on their observation and experimentation in the field.
Source: Ruchi Pant, Ecoserve, India
plants to supplement diets and maintain health. Some
species are used on a daily basis; others are important during
periods of drought or stress. In times of need some farmers
may plant crop varieties resistant to floods, drought or
saline conditions. A diverse genetic base is key to providing
varieties from which such characteristics can be developed.
As Box 1 shows, traditional farming systems actively sustain
rich genetic diversity — a role more important than ever,
as modern farming practices such as monocultures have
significantly reduced diversity within species.
Conserved ecosystems offer many other services vital
for adapting to climate change. Wetlands are important
reservoirs for floodwater. Vegetation such as hedges protects
agricultural land from excessive water or wind erosion in
times of heavy rainfall or drought. And by preventing erosion
on hillsides, vegetation also reduces the risk of landslides
when rain comes in heavy bursts. Watersheds with intact
plant cover slow the movement of rainfall to rivers and so
reduce flood risks downstream. Mangroves are well-known
coastal buffers, reducing the strength of waves before they
reach the shore and so protecting against cyclone damage to
coasts and seaside communities (see also Box 2).
How climate change affects biodiversity Climate
change will have a number of impacts on biodiversity, from
ecosystem to species level.4 The most obvious is the effect
that flooding, sea level rise and changes in temperature will
have on ecosystem boundaries. As a result of these shifts in
boundary, some ecosystems will expand into new areas, while
others will become smaller. Habitats will change as rainfall
and temperatures change, and some species will not be able
to keep up, leading to a sharp increase in extinction rates.
The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA)
estimates that by the end of this century, climate change
will be the main driver of biodiversity loss. Along with
predicting a higher risk of species extinctions, the IPCC says
that temperature increases up to 3 °C are also very likely to
trigger substantial changes in the structure and functioning of
all ecosystems.2
The impacts of climate change on biodiversity will vary
from region to region. The most rapid changes in climate
are expected in the far north and south and in mountainous
regions. These also happen to be the regions where species
are more likely to be ‘painted into a corner’, with no
alternative habitat to which they can migrate. Species with
small populations, or populations restricted to small areas,
are also especially vulnerable to any climatic shifts.
Higher water temperatures have already caused devastating
losses of biodiversity in coral reefs. Global warming is
also causing shifts in the reproductive cycles and growing
seasons of certain species, which can in their turn affect how
ecosystems function. The equilibrium of ecosystems can also
be upset when, for example, insect pests previously unknown
in the UK survive the warmer winters. Migrating species may
be affected dramatically by any changes to stopover sites key
to their survival, or when seasonal availability of food sources
is no longer synchronised with migration times.
How responses to climate change affect biodiversity
The strategies used to counter climate change can also
affect biodiversity adversely. Measures for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions are one example. Some forms of
renewable energy technology can lead to poor outcomes
for biodiversity. Biofuel plantations may involve clearing
areas of high biodiversity, such as tropical forests (leading
to greenhouse gas emissions on top of biodiversity loss),
and introduce monocultures of alien species and damaging
agrochemicals. By ‘drowning’ land and disrupting river
flows, large hydropower schemes can cause the loss of
terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and inhibit fish migration.
Dammed water can also become a net emitter of greenhouse
gases as submerged soils and vegetation decay and release
CO2 and methane.
Poorly located wind farms, on bird migration routes for
example, can kill significant numbers of birds. By contrast,
some renewable energy measures such as efficient stoves
and biogas use can conserve carbon reservoirs and reduce
pressure on forests. An increase in demand for freshwater,
which is likely as the climate warms, could degrade wetlands,
rivers and streams and so damage key ecosystem services.
The links between poverty, climate change
and biodiversity
Poor people are disproportionately vulnerable to the loss
of biodiversity and ecosystem services. And although they
are responsible for emitting the lowest levels of greenhouse
gases, they suffer most from the impacts of climate change.
Recognising this, the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) asserts that there are
‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ for tackling
climate change. But along with the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) and the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), these agreements do not specify the strategies and
methods to be used by parties to each agreement to meet
their stated aims. While links between climate change,
biodiversity and poverty are clear, and there is an obvious
To find out more about this and other IIED work, please visit www.iied.org
imperative to support projects and activities that meet the
objectives of all three agreements, in practice these tend to
be thin on the ground. And in some cases, activities intended
to meet the goals of one agreement may negatively affect the
goals of another.
Geographic location is a key factor in the vulnerability of
poor people and poor nations. Many of these countries lie
in the regions most at risk from climate change (such as
drought-prone sub-Saharan Africa); many of the poor may
live in marginal areas such as floodplains or at the foot of
unstable hillsides. Poor people also have the fewest choices
available to them, and the lowest capacity — because of
lack of resources and mobility, for example — to cope with
climate change-related shocks such as cyclones.5
Poor countries and poor people also depend heavily on
climate-sensitive sectors and natural resources. These
include agriculture, fishing, water provision, grazing, timber
and non-timber forest products such as food, medicine,
tools, fuel, fodder and construction materials.
As the MEA points out, this dependence means the impact
of climate and other environmental changes on biodiversity
and ecosystem services poses a real threat to the livelihoods,
food security and health of the poor. Women in the
developing world are especially vulnerable, as they tend
to rely more on natural resources than men. In dry parts of
India, where wild products normally provide 14 to 23 per
cent of income for the rural poor, drought pushes this figure
up to 42 to 57 per cent.6 Canada’s Inuit people have already
observed climate change-related reductions in the ringed
seal population, their single most important source of food.7
Biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of ecosystem
integrity are central to improving the ability of the poor to
cope with climate change. Ecosystems with rich ‘functional
diversity’— that is, species that fill a variety of unique
ecological roles — are more stable and may be better able to
adapt to climate change than impoverished systems. A larger
gene pool will facilitate the emergence of genotypes that are
better adapted to shifts in climatic conditions.
Pro-poor, biodiversity-friendly adaptation
Coastal protection Sea walls and infrastructure designed
to protect coastal areas from rising sea level and extreme
weather events are often touted as a good means of
adaptation to climate change. But these are expensive to
build and maintain, and use large amounts of energy and
concrete in the construction process, thereby increasing
greenhouse gas emissions. Box 2 describes how, in Vietnam,
the rehabilitation of coastal mangroves — havens for
biodiversity — offers protection against storms that is as
effective as that offered by concrete structures, while also
acting as carbon sinks and enhancing local livelihoods.
Boosting agricultural and rangeland productivity
A common approach to coping with droughts or floods
resulting from climate change is to both provide aid and
attempt to increase agricultural production by using
more intensive farming methods. But these moves tend to
favour neither biodiversity nor the functional health
of ecosystems.
Box 2 Shored up: mangrove rehabilitation
in Vietnam
For decades in Vietnam, tropical cyclones have badly disrupted
the livelihoods of people living near the coast. The risk of further
damage is high, as climate change may increase the frequency
and severity of tropical storms. But the rehabilitation of one type
of coastal ecosystem — mangroves — offers a way of making
communities near them less vulnerable to storms.
Mangrove wetlands provide physical protection from storms
and sequester carbon. They are also a resource base for local
livelihoods and income generation. Since 1994, the Vietnam
Red Cross has worked with local communities to plant and
protect mangrove forests in northern Vietnam. Nearly 12,000
hectares of mangroves have been planted, and the benefits have
been staggering.
Although planting and protecting the mangroves cost
approximately US$1.1 million, the project ultimately saved
US$7.3 million a year in dyke maintenance. During the
devastating Typhoon Wukong in 2000, the project areas
remained unharmed while neighbouring provinces suffered huge
losses in lives, property and livelihoods. The Vietnam Red Cross
estimates that some 7750 families have benefited from mangrove
rehabilitation. Family members can now earn additional income
from selling the crabs, shrimp, molluscs and seaweed that thrive
in the mangroves and increase the protein in their diets.
Source: International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies
When Hurricane Mitch struck Honduras in October 1998,
however, it was found that farms using conventional methods
were less resilient to the erosion and runoff resulting from
the heavy rainfall than farms using agroecological practices
and materials. These included soil and water conservation,
cover cropping to ensure land was never bare, integrated
pest management, and reduced or zero grazing. The
poorest groups suffered the greatest losses. This happened
in part because with little access to credit, land titles and
technical assistance, farmers have few incentives to invest in
sustainable farming practices, which in turn has contributed
to the removal of much protective plant cover.
Yet while farms using agroecological methods suffered
less erosion, landslides affected all farms equally. Good
management of the entire watershed is the only way to
solve this problem. Conserving watershed vegetation
increases water retention and availability in times of
drought, decreases the risk of flash floods and landslides,
and maintains plant cover which also acts as a carbon sink.
But watersheds can cover vast areas and are often used or
owned by a number of people with differing priorities. In this
context, environmental education can help, as can payment
mechanisms between up- and downstream land users.
In drought-prone areas, improved irrigation systems are
often promoted as the best way to cope with reduced
water availability. But in arid parts of Namibia, the markets
generally support indigenous biodiversity production
systems such as wildlife and native antelope management.
In the large ecosystem of the Nama Karas, the rates of return
for communal livestock such as cows and goats, freehold
livestock and tourism (based on indigenous wildlife) are
5.5, 9.8 and 12.9 per cent respectively. These figures stand
despite policy failures and market distortions driving down
To find out more about this and other IIED work, please visit www.iied.org
the value of indigenous species and subsidising the use of
non-native livestock.
Data from 2005 in these areas of Namibia suggest the
natural resources and tourism sectors can out-perform
returns from farming by a factor of two or more. And with
a harsher future climate expected, the economic argument
for shifting to production systems based on indigenous
biodiversity is even stronger. A number of adaptations meet
both aims. These include removing fences to provide open
landscapes that support collaborative management systems,
such as peace parks; and forming large combined estates out
of neighbouring land, in which the landowners own shares.8
Good governance and joint management are needed to
ensure that benefits accruing from this kind of system reach
poorer people — particularly those relying on common
property resources — rather than just an elite.
Protected areas With biodiversity under threat from
climate change, some are calling for the establishment of
protected areas, as havens for species at risk, to receive
renewed support.9 Size is important: larger protected areas
are likely to be more resilient in the face of climate change,
as they provide a greater variety of conditions for a wider
range of species. The proposed Greater Addo Elephant
National Park in South Africa, for example, would include
most of a river catchment, some 440,000 hectares of land
area and 100,000 hectares of marine, and a huge range of
ecosystems, altitudes, and land- and seascapes.
One of the advantages cited for the Greater Addo initiative
is increased protection against climate change. With other
well-managed protected areas, the park could play an
important role in sequestering carbon as well as supporting
sustainable natural resource use, local livelihoods and
biodiversity conservation. Most protected areas struggle
to be self-financing, however, so initiatives like these will
demand public funding to support their management. It is
also important to avoid any repeat of the preservationist
practices and social injustices that accompanied the
establishment of protected areas before the 1970s. Even
today, some protected areas restrict communities living in
and around them from accessing the natural resources they
depend on for livelihoods. Goal 2.2 of the Convention on
Biological Diversity work programme on protected areas
aims to ‘enhance and secure involvement of indigenous
and local communities and relevant stakeholders’. Areas
conserved by communities, where local institutions
sustainably manage both wild biodiversity and traditional
farming systems, can offer a more pro-poor approach than
government-run protected areas.
While protected areas play an important role in conserving
biodiversity, the knock-on effects of climate change may
mean some smaller protected areas cease to provide suitable
habitats for the species they were designed to conserve.
Adaptation to a changing environment rarely features in
the remit of protected area networks. Most biodiversity
is also located outside protected areas, so there is a clear
need to find ways to protect such biodiversity, while also
involving and benefiting the people who rely on this land.
This situation suggests the need for a broader approach
to land management, where solutions that both conserve
biodiversity and benefit local communities are supported.
For example, limited grazing takes place in South Africa’s
Richtersveld National Park, allowing conservation activities
to continue, but not at the expense of local livelihoods.9
Well-managed areas that cover a range of elevations,
microclimates and ecosystems will be less vulnerable to
climate change, as species will be able to migrate to a safe
habitat if climate change adversely affects their present one.
‘Green corridors’ between protected areas and buffer zones
around them will be important, along with good management
of areas between core protected areas.
This is the thinking behind Natura 2000, a network of
protected areas in Europe. This kind of broad ‘mosaic
landscape’ based approach requires a bold partnership
between government, businesses (including farm and forestry
businesses), landowners and non-governmental organisations
to deliver the best social, economic and environmental
benefits possible.
Pro-poor, biodiversity-friendly mitigation
Forest conservation, afforestation and reforestation
Rising concerns over climate change and a growing market
for carbon offer opportunities to link climate change
mitigation with biodiversity conservation. But many of the
proposals to date have paid scant attention to biodiversity
conservation or the world’s poor.10 The Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), established under the Kyoto Protocol of
the UNFCCC, is supposed to provide global benefits from
carbon sequestration as well as sustainable development
benefits to developing countries. Most projects, however, have
been designed without these development benefits in mind.
Proposals to use carbon finance to conserve large areas of
forested land, and so reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
deforestation, rarely provide forest-dependent communities
with access to either carbon finance or forest resources.
For the poor, the benefits of reforestation and afforestation
projects are also unclear because they may have used the
land for other purposes and are unlikely to have the skills
and capital to take part in such projects themselves. While
large-scale monoculture plantations may be effective carbon
sinks, their biodiversity benefits are minimal and they are
more vulnerable to pest attacks, which could cause the loss
of the trees planted. If the reforestation project replaces
native grassland, wetland, shrub- or heathland, dramatic
biodiversity losses may result while leaving any boost in
carbon sequestration open to question.11
Forest conservation, reforestation, afforestation and
agroforestry projects, such as the N’hambita Community
Carbon Project in Mozambique (see Box 3), can potentially
help mitigate climate change, support local livelihoods,
provide biodiversity benefits and restore watershed
functions. Forest management activities such as increasing
forest rotation age, harvesting to emulate natural disturbance
regimes and avoiding fragmentation can simultaneously
provide biodiversity and climate change mitigation benefits.
Afforestation or reforestation can establish ‘green corridors’
and boost biodiversity significantly if a variety of native tree
species of different ages are planted.
To find out more about this and other IIED work, please visit www.iied.org
Box 3 Out of the woods: the N’hambita Community
Carbon Project
In Mozambique’s Sofala province, a project is afoot that
successfully meets the multiple demands of community,
biodiversity and the battle against climate change. The N’hambita
Community Carbon Project, a 1469-hectare site in a buffer zone
of the Gorongoso National Park, aims to restore degraded areas
and promote sustainable land use via a number of methods.
These include good forest management, reforestation, promoting
nitrogen-fixing trees, and the production of non-timber forest
products such as traditional medicine, fruits and fungi. Sedentary
agriculture is replacing slash and burn.
Large-scale renewable energy schemes, such as hydropower
dams, can also negatively affect biodiversity and local
livelihoods. In Southeast Asia, plans to build scores of dams
with massive hydroelectricity generating potential on the
Mekong River will affect the livelihoods of the 52 million
people currently using river resources, many of whom live
below the poverty line. Dam construction will prevent fish
migration, and yet fish provide 40 to 60 per cent of the
animal protein consumed by people in the lower Mekong
basin. The nine largest dam projects alone would displace
60,000 rural people.14
Under the project, some 230,000 trees and 120 kilometres of
firebreaks have been planted to date. Some 70 per cent of the
N’hambita community have been involved, with each farmer
owning 0.7 to 1.8 hectares of land. The project promotes sound
governance and community participation in decision-making
through representation on the project management team.
The way forward Biodiversity and ecosystem services
are the foundation of many successful adaptation strategies,
especially for poor people. They can also deliver climate
change mitigation benefits. Many of the best solutions to
climate change, such as the International Small Group and
Tree Planting Program (see Box 4) provide multiple benefits
— for biodiversity, poverty alleviation, and adaptation
and mitigation. But meeting all these objectives can be
difficult. Adaptation activities in one sector can compromise
those in another, as well as mitigation, biodiversity or
poverty objectives. Decisions should therefore be based
on good science and an understanding of these trade-offs.
At the very least, climate change solutions should aim to
avoid damaging biodiversity and ecosystem services, and
increasing inequity and poverty.
Funding comes from the sale of carbon credits in the voluntary
carbon market. The funds are shared among participating
individuals and some are put in a community trust fund for
projects such as school construction. Other benefits include
sustainable generation of timber and fuel wood, good watershed
management, soil conservation and enhancement of other
ecosystem services. Yields of traditional maize and sorghum
crops have increased by use of nitrogen-fixing food crops such as
pigeon pea.
Local people have also diversified their livelihoods, taking on
enterprises ranging from beekeeping and micro-irrigation for
cultivating vegetables to carpentry and bioenergy production for
schools and the community. Farmers have been trained in tree
planting and protection, micro-enterprise and fire management.
Land use rights are being clarified and better defined. At the
same time, regional organisations are also being trained to
verify carbon offsets, administer trust funds and provide land
management support.
Source: www.miombo.org.uk
Energy Use of renewable energy sources provides an
opportunity to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels.
The Brazilian ethanol programme provides fuel for more
than 5 million cars each year. It has created 720,000 jobs
directly and 200,000 indirectly in rural areas, curbed city
air pollution and avoided 6 to 10 million tonnes of carbon
emissions per year since 1980, according to 2003 figures.12
But elsewhere, the benefits of biofuels are less apparent.
Indonesia has some 6 million hectares of land under oil
palm and the government supports further expansion. If this
goes ahead, up to 50 billion tonnes of carbon are likely to
be released into the atmosphere — the equivalent of over
six years of global fossil fuel burning. Land clearance for
plantations will accelerate the destruction of peatlands,
which are important carbon stores. Due to peatland
destruction, every tonne of palm oil produced in Southeast
Asia results in up to 33 tonnes of CO2 emissions — 10 times
that produced by burning an equivalent volume of petroleum.
The expansion of plantations also reduces food security
because it means less land is available for food crops. Biofuel
production threatens biodiversity. The habitat that has proven
most suitable for oil palm planting in most areas is lowland
evergreen tropical rainforest, which supports the highest
biodiversity of any terrestrial ecosystem.13
In southwestern China, a participatory plant breeding
project has provided multiple benefits by supporting farmers’
innovation and adaptation processes, biodiversity and
livelihoods (see Box 5). Similarly, an agreement between
the International Potato Centre in Peru and Andean farmers
is helping to deliver a range of benefits. Hundreds of lost
potato varieties are being returned to the Potato Park, an
area that protects rich potato diversity along with the rights
of farmers to access and use them. By supporting traditional
farming systems with lower greenhouse gas emissions, these
initiatives are also providing mitigation benefits.
Governments, individuals, bilateral organisations and the
private sector need to do more joined-up thinking to ensure
that initiatives that meet the objectives of the MDGs, the
UNFCCC and the CBD are supported. Currently, however, the
bodies responsible for each convention, and the governments
and ministers in charge of implementing them, tend to have
a sectoral approach, focusing on their own objectives. The
UK Department for International Development, for example,
has recently announced it is giving £50 million to the
government of the Democratic Republic of Congo for avoided
deforestation activities. But with funding going directly to
the Congolese government, it is unclear whether the
communities that live in and rely on the forest land in
question will either benefit from such funds or even retain
their access to forest resources.
While big infrastructure projects can be effective,
comparatively little attention has been paid to non-structural
alternatives and to ‘bottom-up’ approaches rooted in existing
community-based strategies for managing resources and
reducing vulnerability to climatic shocks. Working with
nature is often cheaper than engineered solutions, as Box 2
amply illustrates. Adaptation activities in particular should
To find out more about this and other IIED work, please visit www.iied.org
Box 4 Growing success: the International Small Group and
Tree Planting Program
The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST)
may have started small, but its massive growth since 1999 is
a testament to the multiple-benefit approach to adaptation
and mitigation. Initiated by the Anglican church that year in
Mpwapwa, Tanzania, TIST supports small groups of subsistence
farmers in tackling deforestation and climate change-related
drought and famine. It began with just 40 groups in one region
of Tanzania, but has since grown to over 2800 groups in Kenya,
Uganda and India as well. Over 2.3 million trees have been
planted.
Box 5 Selective partnerships: participatory plant
breeding and adaptation in China
The last 13 years have been tough for Guangxi in China’s
southwest. The province has been hit by higher temperatures,
water stress, more unpredictable drought and flooding, and a
rise in plant pests and disease. These kinds of changes have led
to an erosion of diversity and a rise in absolute poverty in China
and other countries — but not in six Guangxi communities.
There, formal breeders have joined forces with farmers,
supporting local innovation and adaptation processes to tackle
the problems through participatory plant breeding (PPB) and
community based natural resource management (CBNRM).
TIST strategies include small group development, conservation
farming and sustainable agriculture, reforestation, agroforestry
and entrepreneurship involving the sale of carbon offsets and
farm products. Activities also address health, education and
nutrition. Local subsistence farmers are involved in planning,
implementation and information sharing. The aim is to empower
and equip them to restore their natural environment, increase
soil fertility, create jobs, strengthen local economic development
in the local community, and move from famine to surplus.
The project’s overall goal is to link two breeding systems
— the farmers’ and the government’s — through PPB for
crop improvement, biodiversity enhancement and farmer
empowerment. It builds on farmers’ perspectives and traditional
knowledge of maize selection and breeding developed over
generations, and involves the expertise of formally trained plant
breeders. It also promotes biodiversity conservation on farms.
Carbon offsets from tree planting are sold through eBay and
operate under the voluntary market because the complex
regulations of the Clean Development Mechanism market
make it much tougher to enter. Income from carbon offsets
allows local subsistence farmers to buy seeds, care for trees and
buy necessities such as medication and school fees. Palmheld
computers and Global Positioning System technologies are used
to collect information on tree growth and carbon storage, which
is shared via the internet by local people trained as auditors
and quantifiers. Small cash stipends for every living tree are
then deposited regularly into bank accounts opened by small
community groups designated for this purpose. Additional
benefits include erosion prevention, soil improvement, and the
provision of windbreaks, timber, medicine, bee habitats, natural
insecticides and fencing material. Local biodiversity is also
conserved.
And the combination is working. PPB has helped increase
the number and type of genetic varieties and brought in more
diversified cropping systems. It has improved a number of
farmer-developed and external varieties, from which farmers
have selected around 15. These are showing better adaptive
characteristics, such as drought resistance and stress tolerance.
Overall, collaboration between farmer and researcher has
produced added value that each alone could never realise.
Source: Song, Y., Li, J., Huan, Y. and Vernooy, R.
Notes
1.
2.
Source: www.tist.org
3.
take account of local knowledge because poor people have
had to cope with climate variability for many years. While
large projects have political appeal and provide an ‘easy
fix’, the biodiversity, climate change and poverty benefits of
small-scale activities may be many times greater.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Climate change in one sense provides an opportunity to
make a shift towards more resilient ways of using land and
benefiting poor people. Small-scale projects such as the case
studies featured here need to be scaled up and multiplied
to encourage the direction of large-scale funding towards
local solutions. Such funding must come from carbon
finance, which is increasingly available, but also from public
coffers in recognition of the global and multiple benefits
that conservation can yield. This, in turn, requires good
governance at local, national and international levels to
ensure that the projected benefits actually materialise.
Acknowledgements
With thanks to Akwany Leonard for research assistance and to Richard
Pettifor, Kit Vaughan, Joanna Phillips and Paul Morling for comments.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
IPCC (2007) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment
Report. Summary for Policymakers. See www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf.
Fischlin, A. et al. (2007) Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services. In
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry et al. (eds.) Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 211-272.
HM Treasury (2006) Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. See
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_
climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm.
Reid, H. (2006) Climatic change and biodiversity in Europe. Conservation and
Society 4(1): 84-101.
Huq, S., Reid, H., Konate, M. et al. (2004) Mainstreaming adaptation to climate
change in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Climate Policy 4(1): 25-43.
IUCN/DFID/EC (undated) Biodiversity Brief 1: The links between biodiversity and
poverty. See www.undp.org/biodiversity/biodiversitycd/BioBrief1-poverty.pdf.
CBD (2007) Biodiversity and Climate Change. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal.
Brown, C. (2007) Personal communication.
Reid, H., Fig, D., Magome, H. et al. (2004) Co-management of contractual
national parks in South Africa: Lessons from Australia. Conservation and Society
2(2):377-409.
Roe, D., Reid, H., K. Vaughan et al. (2007) Climate, Carbon, Conservation and
Communities. An IIED/WWF Discussion Note. IIED, London.
Reid, H. (2004) Climate change – biodiversity and livelihood impacts. In Roe, D.
(ed.) The Millennium Development Goals and Conservation. IIED, London.
Lèbre La Rovere, E. and Ribeiro Romeiro, A. (2003) The Development and
Climate Project phase I: Country Study Brasil. Centro Clima, COPPE, Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Reid, H. and Simms, A. (2007) Up in Smoke: Asia and the Pacific. Fifth Report
of the Working Group on Climate Change and Development. new economics
foundation, London.
Abramovitz, J. N. (1996) Imperiled Waters, Impoverished Future: The decline
of freshwater ecosystems. World Watch Paper 128. Worldwatch Institute,
Washington, DC.
See also:
Natura 2000 www.natura2000benefits.org
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) is an
independent, nonprofit research institute working in the field of sustainable
development. IIED provides expertise and leadership in researching and achieving
sustainable development at local, national, regional and global levels. This opinion
paper has been produced with the generous support of Danida (Denmark), DFID (UK),
DGIS (the Netherlands), Irish Aid, Norad (Norway), SDC (Switzerland) and
Sida (Sweden).
CONTACT:
Hannah Reid (IIED)
email: [email protected]
3 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0DD, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7388 2117 Fax: +44 (0)20 7388 2826
Website: www.iied.org